Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Drinking the koolaid?
First Bush was the messiah of the right, then Palin, Joe the plumber, now Brown is the latest "Jim Jones" for their party.
Who is the next one?
Is the country more conservative than it was 20 years ago? No. 100 years ago? No.
Liberalism always wins in the long run. It is conservatism that is in perpetual denial.
The reason that's so true is that once you take the leap from ideology (which revs up the herd) into the real world, it's not so easy. Ideology doesn't put food on the table or mend broken bones.
It did for 250 years......as we grew to be the strongest, most free most properous and most generous nation in the world.
Now, as liberalism is applied, we are becoming one of the fattest, laziest and most dependent nations.
Gee....I wonder if dependancy on government has anything to do with it. I wonder if being told..."there, there, the government will help you out...it is not your fault that you signed that contract without reading it..."...has anything to do with it.
That was the first 100....but excellent point.The reason that's so true is that once you take the leap from ideology (which revs up the herd) into the real world, it's not so easy. Ideology doesn't put food on the table or mend broken bones.
It did for 250 years......as we grew to be the strongest, most free most properous and most generous nation in the world.
Now, as liberalism is applied, we are becoming one of the fattest, laziest and most dependent nations.
Gee....I wonder if dependancy on government has anything to do with it. I wonder if being told..."there, there, the government will help you out...it is not your fault that you signed that contract without reading it..."...has anything to do with it.
This country was largely settled by huge government giveaways of land.
I seem to recall that Mr. Obama did not run on a platform of liberalism. To the contrary, he made it quite clear that he was a moderate...
If you recall, people voted for Mr. Obama based on his promise that he was a moderate.
They voted for him based on his one promise that he was going to "Change the way things are done in Washington"
People were not running away from conservatism...they were running away from the way things are done in washington.
If he ran on a platform of "liberalism"...with "larger debt" and "higher deficit" and "more pork in bills"....and "entitlement programs"....and "2000 page bills with no time to read them"...and "back room deals with special interest groups"......I highly doubt he would have won the votes of independants.....
He won by lying...as most politicians do.
Dont make it more complicated than it is.
But that's the problem. It IS more complicated than just "lying." During the campaign, I doubt Obama expected the economic tsunami that hit when he had only been in office a month. He also, like every president before him, hoped that he could "change the way Washington does business," but, like very other president before him, got a rude awakening that it isn't as easy as it sounds. Back room deals and caving to special interest groups has been a part of Washington lawmaking for decades; it's hardly something "new."
Speaking of back room deals, though, I have a feeling there will be far fewer of those because it seems nowadays with the advent of instant blog alerts, the recipients of special favors are the ones who take the bulk of the public's disdain so perhaps they won't be so eager to wheel and deal in the future. One can only hope.
You know...I was not for the healthcare bill. But I came to terms with it and accepted it for what it was. The Nebraska, Fla. and La. deals were a bit exhorbinant, but yes, that is the way of Washington.
But as the fortunate user of a "cadillac" plan, I was angered at the final union deal made by Obama himself. Now he was showing favoritism to the employed...to those with more "hope" than those out there alone.
Now it became a class warfare item to me. Yes, I do better financially than they do. But we all made choices...and I lucked out.
But becuase they were lucky, just not as lucky as me...they get special consideration?
Sorry....but I do not agree with Obama strictly due to the different visions we have.
I now am angered by him as he exudes the aura of a man that frowns upon those of us that have acheived great success.
Because, that in a nutshell is a politician's job. Obama's use of the confusion between earmarks and pork is no more or less bullshit than Bush declaring victory in Iraq back in 2003 - it's what a President must do, in the system we have around us.I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.
Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.
Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.
Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.
Why do you think he does that?
Take this message board for example:
I wasn't here then, but I was at "another" political message board back in 2007 when Bush was still President - and back then, the liberals were blaming everything on Bush. Now, the conservatives on this board are blaming everything on Obama.
If America as a whole has such little idea of how things really work, there's no choice but have the President as someone who spends 90% of their time justifying and talking and making excuses about what they spend the other 10% of their time doing.
I don't think talking points are a bad thing. If people can't take the time to actually understand something, what other choice is there?
By the way, I work in election politics and writing talking points is a pretty big part of my job - if we're going for full disclosure here.
Well said.
And I certainly do not agree with many of your posts; and most probably never will.....although this post is an exception to the rule....... But I appreciate your approach, and, as you see I know when someone knows more about a topic than I do.
Cya.
Now that Obama has failed. Please show us the WOOOOONNNNDDDERRRRRFUUUULLL choices the dem's are going to have come '12.Drinking the koolaid?
First Bush was the messiah of the right, then Palin, Joe the plumber, now Brown is the latest "Jim Jones" for their party.
Who is the next one?
Marco Rubio? Who hasn't even won the Senate seat yet, but the pubs are a forward looking bunch.
Marco Rubio Dismisses 2012 Speculation - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
So many choices, so little time.
Look, just admit it. You voted for style over substance. It's blown up in your face. That's what happens when you vote without doing the research. Now, your boy is failing, and people are fed up with it. More people than not now say he isn't fit for re-election. So, that means many who chose the style over substance path are seeing their grave mistake, and are now pushing back against him. That's a very good thing!...Hopefully, those same people won't fall for an empty suit with sappy assed campaign slogans ever again.So says the troll!
Fact is, you NEVER debate!..You spend all day running around here looking for anybody telling the TRUTH about your beloved messiah being the abject failure he is, just so you can call them trolls. That is the epitomy of a fucking troll!
Seriously, you're a fucking idiot!
LMAO!
Like a good troll, state things about others that fit you.
You're idea of a good argument is "god liberals are fucking idiots".
Yes, we should care what you have to say. ANd your VM responses and negg down comments are even more juvenile.
You lib's had your chance. You snuck in your far lefty, and he's failed miserably. The far left agenda is dead. Just deal with it, because as his presidency moves on, and the broken promises and failures continue to mount, the anger is only going to increase from all sides of the aisle. So, you basically only have two choices. Grow a thicker skin, or simply go blow your own head off. You obviously can't deal with the criticism so, time for you to make a fucking decision. If ya' can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen!
as opposed to you, that likes to pretend he's an open minded, non-partisan hack, and one post will make a legit argument, the next whip out some partisan diatribe or some talking point.
Or do you have multiple personalities.
Thje line in bold...
Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.
Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.
Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.
No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.
For example:
This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"
This is a better talking point:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."
Never mind, those are both talking points. The second one is just better written, if I say so myself.
For talking points to work, they must be factually correct - for example, the first one has the "or saved" added to it to make it technically factually correct. The concept comes from trend of decreasing political attention spans among average Americans. Everyone in America has something to complain about, but few could say why - and talking points are factually correct statements that people identify with as answers to their complaints. Don't like how much you're getting paid? Maybe it's because "those corrupt wall street fat cats". Maybe its because of "Welfare queens who are taking your tax dollars". Both are factually true: Some businessmen on Wall Street are, in fact, corrupt, and there are people who engage in welfare fraud. But neither actually provide any solutions.
Class dismissed.
He's absolutely stuffed his administration with far lefty's.Look, just admit it. You voted for style over substance. It's blown up in your face. That's what happens when you vote without doing the research. Now, your boy is failing, and people are fed up with it. More people than not now say he isn't fit for re-election. So, that means many who chose the style over substance path are seeing their grave mistake, and are now pushing back against him. That's a very good thing!...Hopefully, those same people won't fall for an empty suit with sappy assed campaign slogans ever again.Like a good troll, state things about others that fit you.
You're idea of a good argument is "god liberals are fucking idiots".
Yes, we should care what you have to say. ANd your VM responses and negg down comments are even more juvenile.
You lib's had your chance. You snuck in your far lefty, and he's failed miserably. The far left agenda is dead. Just deal with it, because as his presidency moves on, and the broken promises and failures continue to mount, the anger is only going to increase from all sides of the aisle. So, you basically only have two choices. Grow a thicker skin, or simply go blow your own head off. You obviously can't deal with the criticism so, time for you to make a fucking decision. If ya' can't stand the heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen!
Obama isn't a far lefty. If he were, he would have simply nationalized the failed banks and pushed through the health care reform bill on a simple majority vote BEFORE Scott Brown was elected.
As for voting for style over substance, I, like the rest of the people who voted for Obama, were ready to see this country's domestic priorities addressed for a change which only a Democrat will do. I would have been just as happy with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden as POTUS, but no way would I vote for another Republican for a long, long time.
Thje line in bold...
Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.
Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.
Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.
No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.
For example:
This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"
This is a better talking point:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."
Never mind, those are both talking points. The second one is just better written, if I say so myself.
For talking points to work, they must be factually correct - for example, the first one has the "or saved" added to it to make it technically factually correct. The concept comes from trend of decreasing political attention spans among average Americans. Everyone in America has something to complain about, but few could say why - and talking points are factually correct statements that people identify with as answers to their complaints. Don't like how much you're getting paid? Maybe it's because "those corrupt wall street fat cats". Maybe its because of "Welfare queens who are taking your tax dollars". Both are factually true: Some businessmen on Wall Street are, in fact, corrupt, and there are people who engage in welfare fraud. But neither actually provide any solutions.
Class dismissed.
Think they'll get it? How often do you see headlines with a leading talking point, such as "Only 6% believe stimulus has saved jobs"?? And the headline is ALL they will read, thus believing that the stimulus bill has been a complete failure, when it has not. The truth lies in the fact that most people are either uninterested or too lazy to go to one of the myriad websites and see where the stimulus money has gone (the other 94%).
Thje line in bold...
Talking point is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal disagrees with.
Partisan diatribe is "liberalese" for a point that a liberal can not grasp.
Go away doc.....I have beaten you so many times with your own words it is getting embarrassing for me......I can imagine what it must be like for you.
No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.
For example:
This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"
This is an argument:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."
Class dismissed.
I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.
Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.
Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.
Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.
Why do you think he does that?
You are referring to those that made 5 or 6 figure decisions based on the advice of the person that makes money if they go for it?
Those that wanted to save 300 a month on a 30 year mortgage....or about $120,000...... but were not willing to spring for the 300 bucks to get legal advice?
You mean those victims ?
Or are you talking about those that looked at credit card applications and said "I am too lazy to read the fine print" and signed them anyway....maybe you are referring to them?
Or are you referring to those that were anxious to have their money make easy money for them by investing it into "sure things', but ultimately lost the gamble as the sure thing was not such a sure thing.
You mean those victims?
Or maybe those pooor folks that asked for NINJA loans so they can lie about their income and job history and not get caught and get that mortgage that they so badly wanted but knew that their real income and job history would not be accepoted as it would not support the terms of the mortgage.
Maybe THOSE are the victims you are referring to?
Please tell me....which ones are you referring to?
The Cheap ones who would not hire a lawyer
The lazy ones who would not read the fine print
The gamblers who tried to make easy money
or the liars who lied on an affidavit (mortgage application)
Which ones?"
Educate yourself. There are interviews here with some of the fine fellas you seem so eager to defend. They'll tell you how they did it.
News Headlines
I know how they did it.
"take the low variable rate...when it goes above X% you will refinance to a lower fixed rate"
They are sleeze buckets. So are the losers that scalp tickets for thousands of dollars.
If people did not buy them, they would not be able to sell them....and the scalpers would cease to exist.
Those that got taken, did so becuase they believed what they wanted to believe. Their GREED dictated their reasoning.
They need to learn from it and move on.
Instead, we are going to make sure they never fall into it again....but at the cost of liberties (maybe) and at the financial cost of those of us that were more responsible.
I say, stop feeding the unscrupulous. Stop trying to find the deal that is too hard to beleive. Stop trying to capitalize on the system.
There was a time when a 5% return on money was just fine with all of us. You looked at the deal, if you were in the 5% range.....it was worthy of consideration.
Now? "I want to find a deal that allows me to lower my payment by 30% AND put cash in my pocket"....is how people are out there.
And question Maggie......those that got hurt......where were they when they were paying 1.2% with those teaser rates for a couple of years? Were they taking the extra cash and offering it to others that need it? Or were they bragging to their friends about all of the money they are saving?
Ya need to really think about it.
I submit that the left is in denial. They continue to regurgitate the same failed talking points of the current POTUS out of sheer blind loyalty. And for what?
The Left in this country continues to push for their radical agenda when Americans have overwhelmingly rejected their agenda. It escapes the common lefty that Americans are NOT stupid and anyone that manages a personal budget can tell you that you CANNOT spend your way out of debt. Americans EVERYWHERE are sick and tired of watching these crooks in D.C run this country and it's future into the ground while they make themselves and their buddies rich off the backs of our countries future.
In my life time, I have never seen the American people so angry. I have never seen them so mobilized and eager to clean up our government. And the democrats have in one year tilted so far left that it easy to see the difference between the two parities. The Left is crazy. Their ideals do not work, and it is insanity to think that raising the debt to the levels NEVER seen on this planet; and growing the government into an uncontrollable monster will some how fix our economy.
The arrogance of those on the left highlights what is wrong with them. And if they didn't have the media structure in place to perpetuate their fallacies they would be shunned and mocked as the loons they prove to be everyday. They are dangerous because they lack a coherent and effective vision for the future and they continue to push an agenda that will strip this country of it's greatness by pushing to tax everyone into oblivion and spend the wealth it took this country over 200 years to amass.
There is nothing redeeming about those on the left. They are thieves and liars with a malicious goal of turning the U.S into a third world country. America does not want the future you have planned for this country. It wants prosperity and freedom. Not poverty and slavery.
And for those of you on the left that think we will stop being angry in time to save your obama man. Don't count on it. America is awake and she is going to shake free the democrat fleas that have infested her for too long. It is time for a reckoning and the democrats are going to pay for their treachery. And if you can't see that, then you are in denial.
And I think you're in denial..........not to mention the wingnuts.
Because, that in a nutshell is a politician's job. Obama's use of the confusion between earmarks and pork is no more or less bullshit than Bush declaring victory in Iraq back in 2003 - it's what a President must do, in the system we have around us.No, a talking point is a phrase that sounds really good, but leaves out the "how". A ten word phrase that's designed to make people identify with it. For a talking point to have any actual value, it needs to be expanded upon and justified like any other argument.
For example:
This is a talking point:
"The stimulus package has created or saved millions of jobs"
This is an argument:
"The stimulus money has been put to use towards re-vitalizing the economy of Western New York, now that Gm has invested 470 million dollars on bringing their Tonawanda engine facility up to spec to develop the next generation of engines, in the process creating 500 jobs."
Class dismissed.
I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.
Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.
Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.
Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.
Why do you think he does that?
Take this message board for example:
I wasn't here then, but I was at "another" political message board back in 2007 when Bush was still President - and back then, the liberals were blaming everything on Bush. Now, the conservatives on this board are blaming everything on Obama.
If America as a whole has such little idea of how things really work, there's no choice but have the President as someone who spends 90% of their time justifying and talking and making excuses about what they spend the other 10% of their time doing.
I don't think talking points are a bad thing. If people can't take the time to actually understand something, what other choice is there?
By the way, I work in election politics and writing talking points is a pretty big part of my job - if we're going for full disclosure here.
Because, that in a nutshell is a politician's job. Obama's use of the confusion between earmarks and pork is no more or less bullshit than Bush declaring victory in Iraq back in 2003 - it's what a President must do, in the system we have around us.I agree 100%.
And I expected you to know the definition as I see you apply it frequently.
Doc, however, uses "talking point" without understanding the difference.
Sort of like how many confuse earmark with pork....and one reason why Obama says "there was not one earmark in the stimulus bill" and half the right goes wild saying there were 9000.
Sadly, Obama knows that many misuse the word earmark...and as opposed to correct them, he lets them make asses of themselves.
Why do you think he does that?
Take this message board for example:
I wasn't here then, but I was at "another" political message board back in 2007 when Bush was still President - and back then, the liberals were blaming everything on Bush. Now, the conservatives on this board are blaming everything on Obama.
If America as a whole has such little idea of how things really work, there's no choice but have the President as someone who spends 90% of their time justifying and talking and making excuses about what they spend the other 10% of their time doing.
I don't think talking points are a bad thing. If people can't take the time to actually understand something, what other choice is there?
By the way, I work in election politics and writing talking points is a pretty big part of my job - if we're going for full disclosure here.
I too worked many years in the newspaper business; now just do basic editing for content on a semi-retired basis. BUT, when using a "talking point" we had damned well better be able to back it up with fact, not just more talking points and suppositions and try to present THAT as factual. When researching a source online, I often have to sift through several googled pages before I get to what I need, the first 50 or so entries being bloggers and/or other online content that has simply used as their "basis of fact" an original "talking point" (also not based on fact) put out by a MSM paper or web outlet. But that sheer volume online will give anyone the impression that the "talking point" is, in fact, the whole truth, when it is not.
Who's drinking what?
Bush was never the messiah of the party. But he did win two elections.
Joe the Plumber was a great prop for the election. Brown's story is an American success story but only a few over-enthusiasts are talking about presidential runs.
Obama is teh Democratic messiah. And we see how that's turned out.
only people that ever called him the "messiah" was the dishonest partisan hacks.
I don';t know for certain but I am pretty sure that the Obama Messiah label was spawned by the right wing pundits, not the left ones.
Bingo!only people that ever called him the "messiah" was the dishonest partisan hacks.
I don';t know for certain but I am pretty sure that the Obama Messiah label was spawned by the right wing pundits, not the left ones.
Didn't Louis Farrakhan refer to Obama as the messiah??
I submit that the left is in denial. They continue to regurgitate the same failed talking points of the current POTUS out of sheer blind loyalty. And for what?
The Left in this country continues to push for their radical agenda when Americans have overwhelmingly rejected their agenda. It escapes the common lefty that Americans are NOT stupid and anyone that manages a personal budget can tell you that you CANNOT spend your way out of debt. Americans EVERYWHERE are sick and tired of watching these crooks in D.C run this country and it's future into the ground while they make themselves and their buddies rich off the backs of our countries future.
In my life time, I have never seen the American people so angry. I have never seen them so mobilized and eager to clean up our government. And the democrats have in one year tilted so far left that it easy to see the difference between the two parities. The Left is crazy. Their ideals do not work, and it is insanity to think that raising the debt to the levels NEVER seen on this planet; and growing the government into an uncontrollable monster will some how fix our economy.
The arrogance of those on the left highlights what is wrong with them. And if they didn't have the media structure in place to perpetuate their fallacies they would be shunned and mocked as the loons they prove to be everyday. They are dangerous because they lack a coherent and effective vision for the future and they continue to push an agenda that will strip this country of it's greatness by pushing to tax everyone into oblivion and spend the wealth it took this country over 200 years to amass.
There is nothing redeeming about those on the left. They are thieves and liars with a malicious goal of turning the U.S into a third world country. America does not want the future you have planned for this country. It wants prosperity and freedom. Not poverty and slavery.
And for those of you on the left that think we will stop being angry in time to save your obama man. Don't count on it. America is awake and she is going to shake free the democrat fleas that have infested her for too long. It is time for a reckoning and the democrats are going to pay for their treachery. And if you can't see that, then you are in denial.
Aren't you a drama queen?? Tell me, what awful things did Dems do that "infested" America?? In case you don't know, Bush was a Repulsive, not a Democrat. Clinton was a very good prez and Obama has 3 years to go. So what are you talking about???
Gee, all I got for this post was a neg rep from nonelitist. But no response to my questions. That's very curious.
apparently nonelitist doesn't make arguments, just neg reps people. Did for me too, claiming "all insults, no facts" yet did not post one comment in that thread.
It's amazing how some people need to be complete assholes on forums to feel better about themselves
Who's drinking what?
Bush was never the messiah of the party. But he did win two elections.
Joe the Plumber was a great prop for the election. Brown's story is an American success story but only a few over-enthusiasts are talking about presidential runs.
Obama is teh Democratic messiah. And we see how that's turned out.
Bull!! You have a short memory, don't you?? To this day none of Bush's followers will admit that he ever did anything wrong. You all adored him. That's why you accuse us of feeling that way about Obama. Buts supporters only like him. But Bush was your idol, so keep it real, will you??
Bush left with a 35% approval rating.
Of that 35%, at best, I would say that 20% idolized him.
So where is this "you all" you are referring to?
We admired him for what he stood for during the campaign
We all got caught up in 9-11 and ignored his subsequent failures as a conservative.
We all saw what he was about for the last 3 years.
He was a great man, a good president, and a great CIC in difficult times.
He then became the first president in years to run for a 3rd term....but Obama beat him.
